Jubilee: Dollars over Discussion?

The first time I encountered Jubilee’s political debate videos was on TikTok; short, edited clips that optimize shock factor circulate across the platform. I opened YouTube in an effort to find out more about it, and found myself sitting through a video over an hour long.

Jubilee, a YouTube channel that focuses on social experiment and political discussion videos, has taken the internet by storm – while the channel has always been quite popular, its capitalization on the recent election season with an increase of political videos has seen its popularity boom.

Propelled by the ever-present polarization that has been intensified by the 2024 presidential election, clips of the channel’s controversial, albeit entertaining, debate videos have surfaced all over TikTok, gaining millions of likes–not to mention the original videos on YouTube, which receive tens of millions of views despite their length.

The factor that allows Jubilee, which has published over one thousand videos in fourteen years, to garner such high visibility are the attention-grabbing thumbnails, topics and titles it employs to draw viewers in. However, Jubilee’s stated goal is to incite connection and constructive conversation. The delicate balance between the two intrigued me. When is controversy undoubtedly necessary in order to engage in discussion, and when is it excessively sensationalized?

Its mission reads as such: “Jubilee Media is a digital media company that pushes boundaries, tackles taboos, and breaks the rules. We believe discomfort and conflict are pivotal forces in creating human connection. In short, we’re not afraid to go there.”

Bringing those with different beliefs together has arguably never been more important. When stark divides permeate society to such a high degree, connecting across differences is invaluable. A company that is able to do this deserves as large a platform as Jubilee has.

However, the company itself admits their reliance on controversial, conflict-inciting work. It’s the backbone of both their mission and the work they actually do. This led me to wonder–when does it become too much?

I took a closer look at one of the channel’s most popular videos: “Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?” The video, which gained 24 million views in two months, features 25 liberal college students debating against one conservative in a game-like format.

What the video fails to disclose is that the one conservative participating in the debate is Charlie Kirk–an alt-right conservative activist who founded Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that advocates for conservative ideals in schools. Meanwhile, the college students selected for the video, while some have social media followings, don’t have nearly the same platform and influence as Kirk.

If not manipulative, I find this imbalance is at least misleading: because each side isn’t equally represented; one appears superior to the other. This disparity lends false soundness to Kirk, propelled by his professional ability to twist words and facts in his favor, a skill any regular college student would lack. Kirk presents polished rhetoric and pre-prepared talking points. Why? That’s his job.

Take into context the extremely polarized political landscape of today: especially in America, bipartisan divides are ever-present. When Jubilee specifically casts participants on such far-leaning ends of the political spectrum, the idea that one must cater to an extreme version of one side is reinforced.

A comment by YouTube user redchan2571 reads, “You can have a productive discussion with people that have different opinions, but you cannot have a productive discussion with people who believe in a different set of facts.” I’m inclined to agree.

I also find that Jubilee’s lack of adequate context– from the political extremism of certain participants, to their involvement in external political organizations–normalizes the promotion of harmful ideas. By platforming someone who denies the existence of entire groups of people (and that’s only the beginning of the list), the channel subtly normalizes alt-right ideas. Even without an explicit endorsement, I believe that publishing fundamentally hateful opinions on a channel with over 9.5 million subscribers is irresponsible.

Another obstacle in the way of the channel’s mission is the format of their videos. Too often, the videos’ foundation is built on partici

pants’ opposing sides. Therefore instead of making an effort to understand the other side, participants enter videos with the goal of broadcasting their ideas and proving the invalidity of their opponents.

Take a Surrounded video’s premise, for example: you’re surrounded by 25 others who are diametrically opposed to what you believe in. You’re on enemy territory, tasked with upholding your belief system as others ravage it from all sides. It’s only natural that you’re defensive and aggressive–and that you are unable to understand where others are coming from.

The lack of a moderator, too, is painfully evident in the raucous arguments that often erupt within a few minutes of a conversation. And there’s no explanation for this chaos except for inciting purposeful controversy.

Will Yu ’23 participated in a Jubilee video in early 2024. The video, titled “6 Boys Vs. One Secret Girl,” has over 4.9 million views on YouTube.

Yu’s experience was somewhat unique. Although the premise of the video was for six men, while blindfolded, to identify one girl secretly among them, he admitted that they figured out who the girl was almost immediately.

After the objective of identifying her was cast aside, participants in the video were able to have a much more intimate conversation. “We were able to have an open dialog about our perspectives as men, just to have a dialog about our perspectives, not because we were trying to win this little game show,” he said.

In my opinion, Yu’s account encapsulates an interesting aspect of Jubilee’s format. Instead of prioritizing connection, participants were firstly focused on the trivial game they’d been brought there to play.

This raises the question–if much more profound connections are reached once trivial elements are eliminated, why are they there in the first place? The answer lies in marketability and the videos’ ability to attract an audience.

This balance between marketable conflict and depth is the primary shortcoming of Jubilee – while striving to promote the ideals of understanding and connection, there’s always another goal lurking beneath the surface: profit.

Does Jubilee’s mission prevail through its ploys for digital interaction? Sometimes. When the clickbait aspects of the video end, there’s certainly room for genuine connection. The problem is, they too often obstruct these conversations. Polarized casting, overly game-ified formats, and videos that pit people against each other, all stand in the way of connecting with others on a deeper level.

Unfortunately, the result of Jubilee’s formula is that, while videos are often not constructive, they’re reliably entertaining –which means you’re probably going to keep watching them. So, here are a few things you should remember:

Try not to normalize the ultra-polarized political views that some participants present. In reality, the views that are brought onto the channel are inaccurate representations of what many people actually believe.

With that in mind, do try to approach videos with a lens of learning and growth. Use representatives of different viewpoints to expand your own, and let the videos remind you of other perspectives that exist outside of your bubble.

Don’t let Jubilee’s examples of extremely divisive debates restrict you from having meaningful conversations with those around you with differing perspectives. Human connection is truly invaluable – strive to create it in your own life.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Safiya Shahjahan

Latest posts by Safiya Shahjahan (see all)